What is Digg?300 Comments
- crash331, on 11/13/2007, -9/+297No, they are obviously fake. There is no way that a "broken" camera would make these seemingly deliberate artistic choices. Nor does the camera have the capability to even process some of the effects on the images. Some of them have been embossed, some are negatives, some are triple exposed. There isn't any consistency. Either we need to burn this camera because it can think or they are shopped.
- alex7575, on 11/12/2007, -6/+152You shoot a long video with that camera.
I grab the bong...
Deal or no deal? - TannerC, on 11/10/2007, -11/+142Makes me want to break my camera.
- Jareth86, on 11/10/2007, -4/+132I'm going to call shenanigans on this. How does a broken camera photograph you as transparent, or capture certain elements from the area behind you and place them over?
I guess I just don't understand technology... - b0rna, on 11/11/2007, -4/+128That thing is not broken! Its ALIVEEE!!!!!
- welliamwallace, on 11/13/2007, -13/+133Are you guys seriously falling for this?
- mpphan, on 11/11/2007, -8/+111It's like 6 hours of my use of Adobe® Photoshop® to edit photos, done in less than 4 seconds by a camera that fell on a ground. I'm sad now.
- bigpeeler, on 11/10/2007, -5/+91Take it off the "Psychadelic" setting.
- fLUx1337, on 11/10/2007, -6/+85Find it hard to believe these are real...
Maybe if he took like 5k photos and picked a fraction which were actually any good, but otherwise they are just too aligned to be real... - DroidBlender, on 09/18/2008, -16/+87Wow, trippy. The camera is probably on acid.
- Kyvv42, on 11/12/2007, -2/+58Wow the blond girl is cute...at least I think she is. Could be another side effect of the broken camera. Anyway great pics!
- oep4, on 11/10/2007, -5/+54i call photoshop
- biochem, on 11/09/2007, -4/+49damn!!! i just threw my camera on the ground to try to get these effects. now its in pieces. think i can get my money back?
UPDATE: i just put my camera pieces in the microwave and then doused it in egg and pickle juice. Its as good as new now!!! - ocellnuri, on 11/09/2007, -0/+41 Me too... looks like someone's having fun with Photoshop filters.
Usually I'm one of the last to cry "photoshop"... but these are just a little too consistant. A digital camera isn't really an analog process... I'm not sure how things could go wrong like this. I'd love to be proven wrong though, the premise is fun. - yonis, on 11/13/2007, -2/+40There's no EXIF data either, further lending credence that these pictures are not directly from the camera.
- TerrorByteX, on 11/13/2007, -4/+41Yeah I'm starting to think they're fake too. Gullible me.
- Upon66, on 11/12/2007, -9/+42Sort of looks like the pictures you would find on an emo myspace page.
Awesome pictures though. - ModernMindofM, on 11/13/2007, -1/+32"Hey, Farva - What's the name of that restaurant you like with all of that tacky ***** on the walls?"
- K4P741NxKRUNCH, on 11/13/2007, -1/+32"NO Photoshop other than 'batch rename'"
But the photos all have different names..
Perhaps he said that to explain Photoshop appearing in the exif data. - DeadlyBrad42, on 11/09/2007, -0/+28You mean Shenanigans?
- Mastertone, on 11/08/2007, -3/+26Do NOT fix it.
- zephypyre, on 11/09/2007, -2/+23If it's not a busted camera, it's a photoshopper with far too much time on his hands - indicated by the series photos modified in a uniformly unique (is that the right way to put it?) way. I'm inclined to believe the former.
- altrego99, on 11/12/2007, -1/+22If you ship it to me I will give it back broken for a fee of only $5. Really, no catch, no hidden costs involved.
- ComstockGordon, on 11/09/2007, -5/+26OK... unless that camera has x-ray vision, there is no way that some of those pictures are real -- specifically the one of the guy in front of the flag with the stars superimposed over him. Clearly fake... there is absolutly no logical way that the camera did that by itself
- jc7012, on 11/08/2007, -9/+28some of those are really incredible, the shots with the band and the american flag are awesome
- PrometheusTitan, on 11/11/2007, -0/+19No disassemble!
- mjrpes, on 11/08/2007, -2/+20There is no consistency at all in the 'brokenness'. Therefore I call shens.
- TerrorByteX, on 11/08/2007, -1/+18Hmmm... I'm not sure if I'd want to return something like that, if the option was available. Experiment more, and post more pictures!
- dawgma, on 11/09/2007, -5/+22Those are amazing. I would honestly buy that camera from the owner at a premium. It's incredible how much variety there is... these pictures are more unique than most non-photographers viewing them might think.
- Mudcrutch, on 11/11/2007, -1/+16turn on clear type for the love of god.
- brainScan, on 11/09/2007, -1/+16You're just the only one dumb enough to believe it
- therightclique, on 11/09/2007, -1/+16nope. every single person that clicked the link saw that.
- brownspank, on 11/13/2007, -2/+16You go do that. Say hi to him for me.
- kohan69, on 11/08/2007, -3/+17*****, now let's move on
- bagboyrebel, on 11/08/2007, -0/+14but if it can I think I might need one,...for research purposes obviously.
- Cowfrommars, on 11/08/2007, -3/+17Yes, because you see like that when you are stoned.
- deadbaby, on 11/15/2007, -4/+18I bet Wayne Coyne of the Flaming Lips would be interested in buying that camera from you.
- MalDON, on 11/09/2007, -3/+16Might I add that the guy who submitted this to digg is also the uploader of the pics to Flickr. I mean come on. Digg: iLense Flickr: Integral Lens
- allengeer, on 11/13/2007, -2/+15yea I just dont buy that his camera is capable of placing a random atari symbol overlay on the camera. I also dont buy that his camera is capable of doing "Find Edges" and "Emboss" to a perfect degree. Buried as bull *****.
- davidrools, on 11/08/2007, -0/+13my guess is that there's something that's throwing in different digital effects more than a hardware problem. There's too much variation and different effects for it to be a single consistent hardware problem. though it does appear that the shutter speed is really slow in addition to whatever digital firmware blip there is.
- stoanhart, on 11/08/2007, -1/+13They seem almost too artistic for random errors. Maybe they are fake? Then again...
- yingjai, on 11/12/2007, -2/+14And you become uglier.
- inactive, on 11/13/2007, -1/+13No. Cause the errors aren't consistant. One had the color channels misaligned, none of the others did.
- HerbSolo, on 11/09/2007, -2/+14yeah, i don't buy it neither.
- ComstockGordon, on 11/09/2007, -7/+18Bury this photoshopped garbage please... unless of course this camera has x-ray vision and can place things behind you in the foreground as it does in the pic of the guy infront of the american flag
- SteveMax, on 11/09/2007, -5/+16Simple, it's possessed. Can't you see the devil behind those shots? We need to take action! iLens, you can check if it's a witch: does the camera weight as much as a duck?
- K4P741NxKRUNCH, on 11/08/2007, -0/+11How do the stars get on his hand? It's doesn't make sense. There has to be some sort of blending there, and no matter how broken your camera is, I know it's not able to see through objects
- Ten3, on 11/08/2007, -1/+12Any photographer would realize these are fake in a heartbeat...only non-photographers would fall for something as obvious as this.
- riemnugget, on 11/09/2007, -1/+12Well i re-looked at the photos. and its probably all in camera editing. not from a broken camera at all. Plus he has no exif data to prove that its not photoshoped. Also the groups he placed them in are for double exposures and such im pretty sure broken cameras dont just automatically somehow are able to make those. My D80 was 1000.00 and no way a old little point and shoot is gonna have that feature after they drop it.
- dojonz, on 11/08/2007, -1/+11Just to annoy *****'s like you.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 302 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is